 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Seminonoscillation intervals in the analysis of sign constancy of Green’s functions of Dirichlet, Neumann and focal impulsive problems
Advances in Difference Equations volume 2017, Article number: 81 (2017)
Abstract
We consider the following second order differential equation with delay:
In this paper we use focal problems to analyze the sign constancy of Green’s functions.
Introduction
Impulsive equations attract attention of many recognized mathematicians. See, for example, the books [1–6]. The positivity of solutions to the Dirichlet problem was studied in [7]. A generalized Dirichlet problem was considered in [7–9]. Multipoint problems and problems with integral boundary conditions were considered in [10–15]. The Dirichlet problem for impulsive equations with impulses at variable moments was studied in [16]. All these works considered impulsive ordinary differential equations.
Let us assume that all trajectories of solutions to a nonimpulsive ordinary differential equation are known. In this case, impulses imply only choosing the trajectory between the points of impulses, but we stay on the trajectory of a corresponding solution of the nonimpulsive equation between \(t_{i}\) and \(t_{i+1}\). In the case of an impulsive equation with delay, it is not true anymore. That is why the properties of delay impulsive equations can be quite different.
There are only a few results on the positivity of solutions to impulsive differential equations with delay. Note the results [17–19] about the positivity of Green’s functions for boundary value problems for first order delay impulsive equations. Nonoscillation of second order delay impulsive differential equation was studied in [20]. Sturmian comparison theory for impulsive second order delay equations was studied in [21]. The positivity of Green’s functions for the nth order impulsive delay differential equation was considered in [22]. The idea of construction of Green’s functions for second order impulsive differential equations was first proposed in [23]. The use of Green’s functions for auxiliary impulsive problems in the study of sign constancy of delay impulsive differential equations was proposed in [24], where a onepoint problem was studied. Note also paper [25] for focal problems.
In this paper we use the results for onepoint and focal problems in order to obtain results on the sign constancy for Green’s functions of twopoint boundary value problems.
Let us consider the following impulsive equations:
where \(f, a_{j}, b_{j}:[0,\omega]\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}\) are summable functions and \(\tau_{j}, \theta_{j}:[0,\omega]\rightarrow{[0,+\infty )}\) are measurable functions for \(j=1,2,\ldots,p\). p and r are natural numbers, \(\gamma_{k}\) and \(\delta_{k}\) are real positive numbers.
Let D be a space of functions \(x:[0,\omega]\rightarrow{\mathbb {R}}\) such that their derivative \(x'(t)\) is absolutely continuous on every interval \(t\in{[t_{i},t_{i+1})}\), \(i=0,\ldots,r, x''\in {L_{\infty}}\), there exist the finite limits \(x(t_{i}0)= \lim_{t\rightarrow{t_{i}^{}}} x(t)\) and \(x'(t_{i}0)= \lim_{t\rightarrow {t_{i}^{}}} x'(t)\) and condition (1.2) is satisfied at points \(t_{i}\) (\(i=0,\ldots,r\)). We understand solution x as a function \(x\in{D}\) satisfying (1.1)(1.3).
Definition 1.1
We call \([0,\omega]\) a seminonoscillation interval of \((Lx)(t)=0\) if every nontrivial solution having zero of derivative does not have zero on this interval.
The influence of nonoscillation on sign properties of Green’s functions in the case of nth order differential equations was found in the known papers [26, 27]. An extension of these results on delay differential equations was obtained in [28, 29]. The importance of a seminonoscillation interval in the case of nonimpulsive delay differential equations was first noted in [30]. In this paper we develop the use of seminonoscillation intervals to impulsive delay differential equations.
Construction of Green’s functions
For equation (1.1) we consider the following variants of boundary conditions:
Thus boundary conditions (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) are of focal sort, (2.4) is Dirichlet’s one, (2.5) is Neumann’s condition.
We denote by \(G_{i}(t,s)\) Green’s function of problem (1.1)(1.3), (2.i) respectively.
It is known from the formula of solutions’ representation for a system of delay impulsive equations (see [17] and [25]) that the general solution of (1.1)(1.3) can be represented in the form
where \(C(t,s)\) is the Cauchy function and \(v_{1}(t)\) is the solution of the semihomogenous problem
\(C(t,s)\), as a function of t, for every fixed s, satisfies the equation
and the initial conditions \(C(s,s)=0, \frac{\partial}{\partial t}C(s,s)=1\). Note that \(C(t,s)=0\) for \(t< s\).
Using this general representation, we can obtain the following formulas of Green’s functions:
where
Let us consider the following homogeneous equation:
Lemma 2.1
If

(1)
\(b_{j}(t)\leq{0}, t\in{[0,\omega]}\);

(2)
the Cauchy function \(C_{1}(t,s)\) of the first order equation
$$ \textstyle\begin{cases} y'(t)+\sum_{j=1}^{p}{a_{j}(t)y(t\tau_{j}(t))}=0,\quad t\in{[0,\omega]}, \\ y(t_{k})=\delta_{k} y(t_{k}0),\quad k=1,\ldots,m, \\ y(\zeta)=0,\quad \zeta< 0, \end{cases} $$(2.16)is positive for \(0\leq{s}\leq{t}\leq{\omega}\).
Then the Cauchy function \(C(t,s)\) of equation (1.1) and its derivative \(C'_{t}(t,s)\) are positive in \(0\leq{s}\leq{t}\leq {\omega}\).
Proof
It follows from the condition \(C(s,s)=0, C'(s,s)=1\) that there exists \(\epsilon_{s}>0\) such that \(C(t,s)>0\) and \(C'_{t}(t,s)>0\) for \(t\in {(s,s+\epsilon_{s})}\). Let us suppose that there exists a point η such that \(C'_{t}(\eta,s)=0, C'_{t}(t,s)>0\) for \(t\in{[0,\eta)}\). It is clear that in this case \(x(t)=C(t,s)\) satisfies the equation
where \(\phi(t)=\sum_{j=1}^{p}{b_{j}(t)x(t\theta_{j}(t))}, t\in{[s,\eta ]}\). It follows from the nonnegativity of \(b_{j}(t)\) (\(j=1,\ldots,p\)) and the positivity of \(x(t)=C(t,s)\) that \(\phi(t)\geq{0}\) for \(t\in {[0,\eta]}\).
Let us denote \(y(t)=x'(t)\). Then we can write an equation for \(y(t)\) in the form
It is clear that \(y(s)=1\). The solution of (2.18) can be written
where \(C_{1}(t,s)\) is the Cauchy function of (2.18). Now it is clear that
Lemma 2.1 has been proven. □
Lemma 2.2
If the conditions (1) and (2) of Lemma 2.1 are fulfilled, then Green’s function \(G_{2}(t,s)\) of (1.1)(1.3), (2.2) exists and there exists an interval \((0,\epsilon_{s})\) such that \(G_{2}(t,s)<0\) for \(t\in(0,\epsilon_{s})\).
Proof
According to Lemma 2.1, we have \(C'_{t}(t,s)>0\) in \(0\leq{s}\leq{t}\leq{\omega}\). This implies that Green’s function \(G_{2}(t,s)\) of (2.15), (1.2), (1.3), (2.2), which is defined by (2.12), exists.
It is clear that
It means from (2.22) that there exists an interval \((0,\epsilon _{s})\) such that \(G_{2}(t,s)<0\) for \(t\in(0,\epsilon_{s})\).
Lemma 2.2 has been proven. □
Lemma 2.3
If the conditions (1) and (2) of Lemma 2.1 are fulfilled, then Green’s function \(G_{3}(t,s)\) of (1.1)(1.3), (2.3) exists and there exists an interval \((0,\epsilon_{s})\) such that \(G_{3}(t,s)<0\) for \(t\in(0,\epsilon_{s})\).
Proof
It follows from the condition \(v_{1}(0)=1, v'_{1}(0)=0\), where \(v_{1}(t)\) is a solution of problem (2.7), that there exists \(\epsilon>0\) such that \(v_{1}(t)>0\) for \(t\in{(0,\epsilon)}\). Let us suppose that there exists a point η such that \(v'_{1}(\eta)=0, v'_{1}(t)>0\) for \(t\in{[0,\eta)}\). It is clear that in this case \(x(t)=v_{1}(t)\) satisfies the equation
where \(\phi(t)=\sum_{j=1}^{p}{b_{j}(t)x(t\theta_{j}(t))}, t\in{[s,\eta ]}\). It follows from the nonnegativity of \(b_{j}(t)\) (\(j=1,\ldots,p\)) and the positivity of \(x(t)=v_{1}(t)\) that \(\phi(t)\geq{0}\) for \(t\in {[0,\eta]}\).
Let us denote \(y(t)=x'(t)\). Then we can write an equation for \(y(t)\) in the form
It is clear that \(y(s)=0\). The solution of (2.24) can be written
where \(C_{1}(t,s)\) is the Cauchy function of (2.24). Now, from the positivity of \(C_{1}(t,\zeta)\), it is clear that
It means that \(v'_{1}(\eta)=y(\eta)>0\). Now it is clear that \(v_{1}(t)>0\) for \(t\in{[0,\omega]}\). It means that there is no nontrivial solution to the problem \((Lx)(t)=0, x'(0)=0, x(\omega)=0\). If there is no nontrivial solution of the problem, then Green’s function of (1.1)(1.3), (2.3) exists and
Lemma 2.3 has been proven. □
Lemma 2.4
If the conditions (1) and (2) of Lemma 2.1 are fulfilled, then Green’s function \(G_{4}(t,s)\) of (1.1)(1.3), (2.4) exists and there exists an interval \((0,\epsilon_{s})\) such that \(G_{4}(t,s)<0\) for \(t\in(0,\epsilon_{s})\).
Proof
Let us demonstrate that the problem \((Lx)(t)=0, x(0)=0, x(\omega)=0\) has only the trivial solution. If there exists a nontrivial solution of this problem, it is proportional to \(C(t,0)\). According to Lemma 2.1, \(C(t,0)>0\) for \(t\in{(0,\omega]}\). It means that \(x(\omega)=C(\omega,0)>0\). That contradicts the assumption \(x(\omega)=0\).
Let us take a look at \(G_{4}(0,s)\) and \(G'_{4t}(0,s)\)
since \(C(t,s)\) is positive. It means that there exists an interval \((0,\epsilon_{s})\) such that \(G_{4}(t,s)<0\) for \(t\in(0,\epsilon_{s})\).
Lemma 2.4 has been proven. □
Sign constancy of Green’s functions
In this section we will prove the sign constancy of Green’s functions \(G_{4}(t,s)\) and \(G_{5}(t,s)\) using the results from [24] and [25] about the sign constancy of \(G_{1}(t,s), G_{2}(t,s)\) and \(G_{3}(t,s)\).
Theorem 3.1
Assume that the following conditions are fulfilled:

(1)
\(G_{1}^{\xi}(t,s)\geq{0}, t,s\in{[0,\xi]}\) for every \(0<\xi<\omega\).

(2)
\([0,\omega]\) is a seminonoscillation interval of \((Lx)(t)=0\).

(3)
\(b_{j}(t)\leq{0}, t\in{[0,\omega]}\).

(4)
The Cauchy function \(C_{1}(t,s)\) of the first order equation (2.16) is positive for \(0\leq{s}\leq{t}\leq{\omega}\).
Then \(G_{2}(t,s)\leq{0}\), \(G_{3}(t,s)\leq{0}\), \(G_{4}(t,s)\leq {0}\) for \(t,s\in{[0,\omega]}\) and under the additional condition \(\sum_{j=1}^{p}{b_{j}(t)\chi(t\theta_{j}(t))}\not\equiv{0}, t\in {[0,\omega]}\), where
we have also \(G_{5}(t,s)\leq{0}\) for \(t,s\in{[0,\omega]}\).
Proof
Let us start with problem (1.1)(1.3), (2.2). According to Lemma 2.2, there exists a unique solution for every summable \(f(t)\). Let us assume that \(G_{2}(t,s)\) changes sign. It means that there exists a function \(f(t)\geq{0}\) such that the solution \(x(t)\) changes sign. Then there is a point \(0<\xi<\omega\) such that \(x(\xi)>0\) and \(x'(\xi)=0\) (see Figure 1). From condition 1, we know that Green’s function for this problem \(G_{1}^{\xi}(t,s)\) is nonnegative. Then \(x(t)\geq{0}\) for \(t\in{[0,\xi]}\). But, according to Lemma 2.2, \(x(t)<0\) for t which are close to 0. This contraction demonstrates that the solution \(x(t)\) cannot change its sign for nonnegative \(f(t)\). This proves that \(G_{2}(t,s)\) should be nonpositive.
Let us now consider problem (1.1)(1.3), (2.3). According to Lemma 2.3, there exists a unique solution for every summable \(f(t)\). Let us assume that \(G_{3}(t,s)\) changes sign. It means that there exists a function \(f(t)\geq{0}\) such that the solution \(x(t)\) changes sign. Then there is a point \(0<\xi<\omega\) such that \(x(\xi)>0\) and \(x'(\xi)=0\) (see Figure 2). From condition 1, we know that Green’s function for this problem \(G_{1}^{\xi}(t,s)\) is nonnegative. Then \(x(t)\geq{0}\) for \(t\in{[0,\xi]}\). But, according to Lemma 2.3, \(x(t)<0\) for t which are close to 0. This contraction demonstrates that the solution \(x(t)\) cannot change its sign for nonnegative \(f(t)\). This proves that \(G_{3}(t,s)\) should be nonpositive.
Let us now consider problem (1.1)(1.3), (2.4). According to Lemma 2.4, there exists a unique solution for every summable \(f(t)\). Let us assume that \(G_{4}(t,s)\) changes sign. It means that there exists a function \(f(t)\geq{0}\) such that the solution \(x(t)\) changes sign. Then there is a point \(0<\xi<\omega\) such that \(x(\xi)>0\) and \(x'(\xi)=0\) (see Figure 3). From condition 1, we know that Green’s function for this problem \(G_{1}^{\xi}(t,s)\) is nonnegative. Then \(x(t)\geq{0}\) for \(t\in{[0,\xi]}\). But, according to Lemma 2.4, \(x(t)<0\) for t which are close to 0. This contraction demonstrates that the solution \(x(t)\) cannot change its sign for nonnegative \(f(t)\). This proves that \(G_{4}(t,s)\) should be nonpositive.
Let us now consider problem (1.1)(1.3), (2.5). The condition
means that \(b_{j}(t)\chi(t\theta_{j}(t))<0\) on the set of positive measure. Let us prove the nonpositivity of Green’s function \(G_{5}(t,s)\) step by step.
Step 1. Let us suppose that there is a solution of \((Lx)(t)=f(t), t\in{[0,\omega]}\), \(x'(0)=x'(\omega)=0\) with nonnegative \(f(t)\geq{0}, f(t)\not\equiv{0}\) such that \(x(t)\geq {0}\). It is clear that this \(x(t)\) satisfies the equation
where \(\phi(t)=f(t)\sum_{j=1}^{p}{b_{j}(t)x(t\theta_{j}(t))}\). It is clear that \(\phi(t)\geq{0}\) and from the fact \(\sum_{j=1}^{p}{b_{j}(t)\chi(t\theta_{j}(t))}<0\) on the set of positive measure, we have \(\phi(t)>0\) for \(t\in{[0,\omega]}\).
Let us denote \(y(t)=x'(t)\). Then we can write an equation for \(y(t)\) in the form
It is clear that \(y(0)=0\). The solution of (3.4) can be written
where \(C_{1}(t,s)\) is the Cauchy function of (3.4). It follows that \(C_{1}(t,s)>0\) from [17]. Now it is clear that
and \(x'(\omega)=y(\omega)>0\). This demonstrates that the case \(x(t)>0\) for \(f(t)\geq{0}, f(t)\not\equiv{0}\) is impossible.
Step 2. Let us assume that there exists a solution \(x(t)\) changing sign on \([0,\omega]\) for nonnegative \(f(t)\). We have to consider two cases: the solution \(x(t)\) changes sign first time from positive to negative; and the solution \(x(t)\) changes sign first from negative to positive.
In the first case, we have a point η such that \(x(\eta)=0\). It means that our function \(x(t)\) satisfies the problem \((Lx)(t)=f(t), x'(0)=0, x(\eta)=0\). We have proven above that \(G_{3}(t,s)\leq{0}\) and this excludes the possibility of \(x(t)>0\) for \(t\in{[0,\eta)}\).
In the second case, we have a point ξ such that
and the condition \(G_{1}^{\xi}(t,s)\geq{0}\) implies that \(x(t)>0\). We proved in Step 1 that the situation \(x(t)>0\) is impossible. Then \(G_{5}(t,s)\leq{0}\) for \(t,s\in{[0,\omega]}\).
Theorem 3.1 has been proven. □
Theorem 3.2
Assume that \(a_{j}\geq{0}, b_{j}\leq{0}\) for \(j=1,\ldots,p\), \(0<\gamma _{k}\leq{1}, 0<\delta_{k}\leq{1}\) for \(k=1,\ldots,r\), and there exists a function \(v\in{D}\) and \(\epsilon>0\) such that
where the differential operator L is defined by (1.1). And let \([0,\omega]\) be a seminonoscillation interval of \((Lx)(t)=0\). Then Green’s functions \(G_{2}(t,s)\), \(G_{3}(t,s)\), \(G_{4}(t,s)\) satisfy the inequalities \(G_{2}(t,s)\leq{0},G_{3}(t,s)\leq{0},G_{4}(t,s)\leq{0}, (t,s)\in{[0,\omega]\times{[0,\omega]}}\). If, in addition, \(\sum_{j=1}^{p}{b_{j}(t)\chi(t\theta_{j}(t))}\not\equiv{0}, t\in{[0,\omega ]}\), then \(G_{5}(t,s)\leq{0}, (t,s)\in{[0,\omega]\times{[0,\omega]}}\).
Proof
It is clear that all the conditions of assertion (1) of Theorem 4.1 from [24] are fulfilled. According to this theorem, \(G_{1}^{\xi}(t,s)\geq{0}\) for every \(t,s\in(0,\omega)\) and every \(0<\xi<\omega\). Using Theorem 3.1 above, we obtain that \(G_{2}(t,s)\leq{0}\), \(G_{3}(t,s)\leq{0}\), \(G_{4}(t,s)\leq{0}\) for \(t,s\in {[0,\omega]}\). If, in addition, \(\sum_{j=1}^{p}{b_{j}(t)\chi(t\theta _{j}(t))}\not\equiv{0}, t\in{[0,\omega]}\), then it follows that \(G_{5}(t,s)\leq{0}\) for \(t,s\in{[0,\omega]}\).
Theorem 3.2 has been proven. □
Theorem 3.3
Assume that the following conditions are fulfilled:

(1)
\(G_{2}^{\xi}(t,s)\leq{0}, t,s\in{[0,\xi]}\) for every \(0<\xi<\omega\).

(2)
\([0,\omega]\) is a seminonoscillation interval of \((Lx)(t)=0\).
Then \(G_{4}(t,s)\leq{0}\) for \(t,s\in{[0,\omega]}\).
Proof
Let us consider problem (1.1)(1.3), (2.4). According to Lemma 2.4, there exists a unique solution for every summable \(f(t)\). Let us assume that \(G_{4}(t,s)\) changes sign. It means that there exists a function \(f(t)\geq{0}\) such that the solution \(x(t)\) changes sign from negative to positive according to Lemma 2.4. Then there is a point \(0<\xi<\omega\) such that \(x(\xi)=\alpha>0\) and \(x'(\xi)=0\) (see Figure 1). From condition 1, we know that Green’s function for this problem, \(G_{2}^{\xi}(t,s)\) is nonpositive. From condition 2, it follows that the solution of problem \((Lx)(t)=0, x(\xi )=\alpha>0, x'(\xi)=0\) is positive for \(t\in{(0,\xi]}\). Then \(x(t)\leq{0}\) for \(t\in{[0,\xi]}\). This contradicts Lemma 2.4, which claims that \(x(t)\) can change its sign only from negative to positive for nonnegative \(f(t)\). Then \(G_{4}(t,s)\) should be nonpositive.
Theorem 3.3 has been proven. □
Theorem 3.4
Assume that \(a_{j}\geq{0}, b_{j}\geq{0}\) for \(j=1,\ldots,p\), \(1\leq {\gamma_{k}}, 1\leq{\delta_{k}}\), for \(k=1,\ldots,r\), and there exists a function \(v\in{D}\) and \(\epsilon>0\) such that
where the differential operator L is defined by (1.1). And let \([0,\omega]\) be a seminonoscillation interval of \((Lx)(t)=0\). Then Green’s function \(G_{4}(t,s)\) of (1.1)(1.3), (2.4) satisfies the inequality \(G_{4}(t,s)\leq{0}, (t,s)\in{[0,\omega ]\times{[0,\omega]}}\).
Proof
Looking at Theorem 5.1 from [25], we can see that the problem satisfies all of the conditions. Then \(G_{2}(t,s)\leq{0}\) for every \(t,s\in(0,\omega)\). Using Theorem 3.3 above, we obtain that \(G_{4}(t,s)\leq{0}\) for \(t,s\in{[0,\omega]}\).
Theorem 3.4 has been proven. □
Example 3.5
Let us now find an example of a function v satisfying the condition of Theorem 3.2. To this end, let us start with \(v(t)=e^{\alpha{t}}\) in the interval \(t\in{[0,t_{1})}\). The function v in the rest of the intervals will be of the form
where
After some calculations, we get that v is of the form
For the next theorems, we use the following notation:
Theorem 3.6
If \(a_{j}\geq{0}, b_{j}\leq{0}, 0<\gamma_{i}<\delta_{i}\leq{1}, j=1,\ldots ,r\), and
then Green’s functions \(G_{2}(t,s)\), \(G_{3}(t,s)\) and \(G_{4}(t,s)\) are nonnegative.
Proof
Let us substitute this \(v(t)\), defined by (3.12), into the condition of Theorem 3.2
Thus
where Ω is defined by (3.16). Denoting \(F(\alpha)=\alpha^{2} E^{2} e^{\alpha{E}\Omega}\), we can find its maximum using the derivative
and we get that \(\alpha=\frac{2}{E\Omega}\) is a point of maximum. Substituting this α into (3.19), we see that (3.17) implies, according to Theorem 3.3, the nonnegativity of \(P(t,s)\).
Theorem 3.6 has been proven. □
In the particular case \(a_{j}(t)=0, j=1,\ldots,p\), we have
Corollary 3.7
If \(b_{j}\leq{0}, 0<\gamma_{i}<\delta_{i}\leq{1}, j=1,\ldots,r\), and
then Green’s functions \(G_{2}(t,s)\), \(G_{3}(t,s)\) and \(G_{4}(t,s)\) are nonnegative.
Theorem 3.8
If \(a_{j}\geq{0}, b_{j}\leq{0}, 0<\delta_{i}\leq{\gamma_{i}}\leq{1}, j=1,\ldots,r\), and
then Green’s functions \(G_{2}(t,s)\), \(G_{3}(t,s)\) and \(G_{4}(t,s)\) are nonnegative.
Proof
Let us substitute this \(v(t)\), defined by (3.12), into the condition of Theorem 3.2
Thus
where Ω is defined by (3.16). Denoting \(F(\alpha)=\alpha^{2} E^{2} e^{\alpha\Omega}\), we can find its maximum using the derivative
and we get that \(\alpha=\frac{2}{\Omega}\) is a point of maximum. Substituting this α into (3.24), we see that (3.33) implies, according to Theorem 3.3, the nonnegativity of \(G_{2}(t,s)\), \(G_{3}(t,s)\) and \(G_{4}(t,s)\).
Theorem 3.8 has been proven. □
Theorem 3.9
Assume that
Then \([0,\omega]\) is a seminonoscillation interval.
Example 3.10
Let us now find an example of a function v satisfying the condition of Theorem 3.4. To this end, let us start with \(v(t)=t(2\omegat)\) in the interval \(t\in{[0,t_{1})}\), where ϵ is a small positive constant. The function v in the rest of the intervals will be of the form
where
Thus
where \(v(t_{i})\) and \(v'(t_{i})\) can be presented in the forms
Let us assume that \(v(t)>0\) and substitute this \(v(t)\) into condition (3.9) of Theorem 3.4.
For the next corollary, we use the following notation:
where \(v(t_{r+1})=v(\omega)\).
Corollary 3.11
If \(a_{j}\geq{0}, b_{j}\geq{0}, 1\leq{\gamma_{k}}, 1\leq{\delta_{k}}, j=1,\ldots,p\), \(v(t)\) defined by (3.29) is positive for \(t\in {(0,\omega)}\) and
then Green’s function \(G_{4}(t,s)\) of problem (1.1)(1.3), (2.4) is nonpositive.
Proof
Let us substitute this \(v(t)\), defined by (3.29), into the assertion of Theorem 3.4
and we get the condition
□
References
 1.
Azbelev, NV, Maksimov, VP, Rakhmatullina, LF: Introduction to the Theory of Linear FunctionalDifferential Equations. Advanced Series in Math. Science and Engineering, vol. 3. World Federation Publisher Company, Atlanta (1995)
 2.
Bainov, D, Simeonov, P: Impulsive Differential Equations. Pitman Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 66. Longman Scientific, Harlow (1993)
 3.
Lakshmikantham, V, Bainov, DD, Simeonov, PS: Theory of Impulsive Differential Equations. World Scientific, Singapore (1989)
 4.
Pandit, SG, Deo, SG: Differential Equations Involving Impulses. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 954. Springer, Berlin (1982)
 5.
Samoilenko, AM, Perestyuk, AN: Impulsive Differential Equations. World Scientific, Singapore (1992)
 6.
Zavalishchin, SG, Sesekin, AN: Dynamic Impulse Systems: Theory and Applications. Mathematics and Its Applications, vol. 394. Kluwer, Dordrecht (1997)
 7.
Jiang, D, Lin, X: Multiple positive solutions of Dirichlet boundary value problems for second order impulsive differential equations. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 321, 501514 (2006)
 8.
Feng, M, Xie, D: Multiple positive solutions of multipoint boundary value problem for secondorder impulsive differential equations. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 223, 438448 (2009)
 9.
Jiang, J, Liu, L, Wu, Y: Positive solutions for second order impulsive differential equations with Stieltjes integral boundary conditions. Adv. Differ. Equ. 2012, 124 (2012)
 10.
Hao, X, Liu, L, Wu, Y: Positive solutions for second order impulsive differential equations with integral boundary conditions. Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 16, 101111 (2011)
 11.
Hu, L, Liu, L, Wu, Y: Positive solutions of nonlinear singular twopoint boundary value problems for secondorder impulsive differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 196, 550562 (2008)
 12.
Jankowski, T: Positive solutions to second order fourpoint boundary value problems for impulsive differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 202, 550561 (2008)
 13.
Jankowski, T: Positive solutions for second order impulsive differential equations involving Stieltjes integral conditions. Nonlinear Anal. 74, 37753785 (2011)
 14.
Lee, EK, Lee, YH: Multiple positive solutions of singular two point boundary value problems for second order impulsive differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 158, 745759 (2004)
 15.
Agarwal, RP, O’Regan, D: Multiple nonnegative solutions for second order impulsive differential equations. Appl. Math. Comput. 114, 5159 (2000)
 16.
Rachunkova, I, Tomecek, J: A new approach to BVPs with statedependent impulses. Bound. Value Probl. 2013, 22 (2013). doi:10.1186/16872770201322
 17.
Domoshnitsky, A, Drakhlin, M: Nonoscillation of first order impulse differential equations with delay. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 206, 254269 (1997)
 18.
Domoshnitsky, A, Volinsky, I: About positivity of Green’s functions for nonlocal boundary value problems with impulsive delay equations. Sci. World J. 2014, Article ID 978519 (2014)
 19.
Domoshnitsky, A, Volinsky, I: About differential inequalities for nonlocal boundary value problems with impulsive delay equations. Math. Bohem. 140, 121128 (2015)
 20.
Tian, YL, Weng, PX, Yang, JJ: Nonoscillation for a second order linear delay differential equation with impulses. Acta Math. Appl. Sin. 20, 101114 (2004)
 21.
Bainov, D, Domshlak, Y, Simeonov, P: Sturmian comparison theory for impulsive differential inequalities and equations. Arch. Math. 67, 3549 (1996)
 22.
Domoshnitsky, A, Drakhlin, M, Litsyn, E: On boundary value problems for Nth order functional differential equations with impulses. Adv. Math. Sci. Appl. 8(2), 987996 (1998)
 23.
Domoshnitsky, A, Landsman, G, Yanetz, S: About signconstancy of Green’s functions for impulsive second order delay equations. Opusc. Math. 34(2), 339362 (2014)
 24.
Domoshnitsky, A, Landsman, G, Yanetz, S: About signconstancy of Green’s function of onepoint problem for impulsive second order delay equations. Funct. Differ. Equ. 21(12), 315 (2014)
 25.
Domoshnitsky, A, Landsman, G, Yanetz, S: About signconstancy of Green’s function of a twopoint problem for impulsive second order delay equations. Electron. J. Qual. Theory Differ. Equ. 2016, 9 (2016)
 26.
Chichkin, EA: Theorem about differential inequality for multipoint boundary value problems. Izv. Vysš. Učebn. Zaved., Mat. 27(2), 170179 (1962)
 27.
Levin, AY: Nonoscillation of solutions of the equation \(x^{(n)}+p_{n1}(t)x^{(n1)}+\cdots+p_{0}(t)x=0\). Usp. Mat. Nauk 24(2), 4396 (1969)
 28.
Azbelev, NV, Domoshnitsky, A: A question concerning linear differential inequalities. Differ. Equ. 27, 257263 (1991); translation from Differentsial’nye uravnenija, 27, 257263 (1991)
 29.
Azbelev, NV, Domoshnitsky, A: A question concerning linear differential inequalities. Differ. Equ. 27, 923931 (1991); translation from Differentsial’nye uravnenija, 27, 641647 (1991)
 30.
Bainov, D, Domoshnitsky, A: Theorems on differential inequalities for second order functionaldifferential equations. Glas. Mat. 29(49), 275289 (1994)
Acknowledgements
Dr. Shlomo Yanetz (Bar Ilan University, Israel) for his important and valuable remarks. This paper is a part of the second author’s Ph.D. thesis which is being carried out in the Department of Mathematics at BarIlan University.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally to the writing of this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Domoshnitsky, A., Landsman, G. Seminonoscillation intervals in the analysis of sign constancy of Green’s functions of Dirichlet, Neumann and focal impulsive problems. Adv Differ Equ 2017, 81 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1366201711341
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
MSC
 34K10
 34B37
 34A40
 34A37
 34K48
Keywords
 impulsive equations
 Green’s functions
 positivity/negativity of Green’s functions
 boundary value problem
 second order